RSS Feed Menu
What’s Romney thinking?
Mitt Romney is hitting President Obama hard on America’s weak job performance over the past two and a half years.
Yet Romney himself has pledged himself to policies that will squeeze jobs in the near term, at least according to conventional economic theory.
He has endorsed the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act for large, early federal spending cuts: no more fiscal stimulus. Yesterday he put himself on record in opposition to any more monetary stimulus.
How to reconcile these positions?
Four possible answers.
1) Romney has become a true believer in the “confidence” theory of job creation. Unemployment remains high (according to this theory) because big government and loose money detract from business confidence. By cutting spending and tightening money, we can restore confidence and inspire business to hire again. This theory has been endorsed by many Republicans including Speaker Boehner. Maybe Romney has joined the crowd?
Problem with Answer 1: Romney just seems too damn smart to believe something so at odds with reality.
2) Romney is a total cynic. He will say whatever he needs to say to win the GOP nomination. Then he will say whatever he needs to say to win the general election. He’ll worry later about how to fix the economy: first he has to clinch today’s sale.
Problem with Answer 2: Romney has had painful experience with how hard it is to escape later the promises made today. He’s still dogged by his pro-choice commitments of 2002. Would such a careful planner volunteer for the risk that he’d enter the presidency burdened by commitments that doomed him to economic failure?
3) Romney expects the economy to have already turned around by itself by 2013. He’s already taking up what he genuinely believes are the appropriate policies for a period of recovery.
Problem with Answer 3: The economy has been growing since 2009. At the current pace of job creation, we still would not have reached anywhere near full employment by the time a President Romney faced re-election in 2016. An early adoption of contractionary policies would only make his own job harder.
4) Romney expects the Republicans to lose the House of Representatives in 2012. Romney’s commitments to fiscal austerity, whatever their inherent lack of merit, will give him negotiating leverage to resist a House full of Democrats demanding big New Deal job creation programs.
Problem with Answer 4: It just seems too complicated a plan, even for Romney.
the answer is #2
the reason is the reason all politicians give for betraying their principles – first you have to get power then you can worry about what you do with it.
Most Americans would rather have the Mormon who worships a guy who got gold plates delivered from angels ( and only readable with special spy goggles) as President rather than the anti-American, half-Kenyan reparationist we have in now.
I know I would.
I’ll see you in hell, Smarg. At least I have no illusions about my destination. We’ll have eternity for me to look at the surprised look on your face while I’m laughing at you.
Why is President Obama “anti-american,” Smarg?
I won’t address the latter part of your statement, Smarg, since I assume you write this rot while you are wearing your Klan garb.
Don’t bother, anniemargret, no one who reads this site on a regular basis pays any attention to anything Smarg writes. He/she/whatever only writes troll-bait-style comments, the same thing every time, intended to rile people up, a common tactic on sites like this. We just skip past anything with that name attached, simple & easy.
I am convinced that politicians, by and large, have different thought processes than the rest of us. Most of us do not and would not want to be President, but those who do would dream (I would think) of the great things they could accomplish and the respect they could earn if only they were.
At the outset of his political career, Abraham Lincoln laid out his reasons for aspiring to public office:
See, I get that point of view. What I don’t get is why anyone would desire to become President on such terms that he or she was doomed to be a bad one from the outset. Why would sane people wish for themselves the kind of legacy enjoyed by James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, or G.W. Bush? Why in the world would Romney compromise himself from the outset when most observers doubt his sincerity anyway?
And yet he does.
David,
I think Mitt is worried about appearing as a RINO in the primaries, hoping that GE voters won’t notice any silly things being said in the primaries… so I’d say number 2 is the most appropriate, and I don’t think Romney thinks about this:
Problem with Answer 2: Romney has had painful experience with how hard it is to escape later the promises made today. He’s still dogged by his pro-choice commitments of 2002. Would such a careful planner volunteer for the risk that he’d enter the presidency burdened by commitments that doomed him to economic failure?
He was proudly pro gay rights as governor, he’s managed to walk that back , so maybe his economic prescriptions are just to get him out of the primaries past Paul, Bachmann, Perry, etc., then he’ll switch to more prudent economic prescriptions, or at least let’s hope so, but don’t see it unless public opinion switches back.
I keep wondering more and more …
Why won’t Frum just come out and endorse keeping Obama in office for another 4 years?
I don’t see anything from Frum which would suggest that he wants a significant change from the last 4 years. If anything, for the most part we’re seeing him quibble around the edges with Obama’s performance … but in general it seems like what he wants is a GOP President who would largely govern like Obama has.
If that’s the case … what’s “conservative” about putting government through the massive upheaval that a change in administrations brings up and down the federal bureaucracy?
And moreover, does Frum not have any fear that some of the initiatives that have come out of the House that he doesn’t like at all could sneak through the Senate and be signed by a GOP President under political pressure to not veto legislation proposed by his own party?
At this stage, I’d love to see a detailed article from Frum saying what he hasn’t liked about Obama’s performance … and what he’d expect from any GOP challenger in those specific areas that would improve over Obama’s performance.
Otherwise I’m left wondering … is the only reason Frum would rather have a moderate Republican in the White House than Obama because it would be easier for him to get a job in such an Adminstration?
Seems like he’s been dancing around doing just that.
Interesting question David, however the answer may surprise you. As a candidate he has a number of hot button issues he needs to address: Military good, job goods, Obama bad, deficit bad. The stump is a terrible place for logic when the speeches are crafted to elicit a very specific reaction by the electors (in this case grass root republicans). In a sense, what he says now needs only work on the narrative of winning the nomination. In reality his record in Mass. speaks for itself and his view are probably real but he must subsumes these views to let support the prevalent orthodoxy. GOP faithful don’t want to be told what to think, they want to select the candidate that best reflects their views (even if they are counterproductive)
Bottom line with his long political “history” there will always be skeleton in his closet! BTW, the lack of legislative markers for Bachmann is exactly what made her an attractive candidate early on, now she’s screwed because she has no depth and Perry has stolen her thunder. Romney has no choice but to sound dysfunctional to the electorate at large, he will “try” to fix that image if he wins the nomination.
First, he’s got to win the GOP contest, worry about Nov 2nd later!
Romney has lost all credibility for speaking about jobs, job losses, or any matter relating to employment.
He is a capitalist of vast wealth, who has had the effrontery to claim that he is in need of work to survive. If he cannot understand the fundamental difference between being unemployed, i.e. NEEDING a job, and being independently wealthy, i.e. NOT needing a job, he cannot be trusted on any matters more complex.
It’s #2. Romney is faced with having to perform the neat trick of appeasing a radically right-leaning base to nab the nomination, and then tacking to center for the General Election without having said things that will basically hand Obama a “flip-flopper” bat with which to bludgeon him. It is, in my estimation, an herculean task, one part cynicism, two parts necessity.
I think Romney recognizes that he has no way to play to the center now and hope to win the nomination. His best bet is to “appear presidential” and to offer a “sane” alternative to folks like Bachman and Perry, each of whom have some pretty ridiculous views. Romney must say just barely enough to establish his conservative bona fides, while not stepping on any landmines, and in the meantime, working what oppo-research he can. He needs to remain visible and connected to the voters, without getting caught in a mud fight with the pigs.
In the face of all of this, he has to say what is necessary to gain the support of the base, especially early on to build sufficient momentum. He has plenty of advantages, but his one weakness is that people in the GOP who vote in primaries don’t see him as conservative enough (given their own definition of what equals “conservative”). So, that’s the necessity. He still has to mix it up on policy in the primary, and that means saying stuff that resonates with voters, even if it has nothing to do with good governance. So, there’s your necessity.
On the cynical side, I suspect Romney figures enough will have happened and he’ll be able to make a strong enough case when he moves to the center for the general election that he won’t have to worry about what he said during the primary. Challenger candidates frequently face such a task (although Romney’s is considerably harder, given the hurdles he faces with the GOP base), but it can be done. Why? Because people are voting for red vs. blue, not for policies. Because nobody’s going to care what he said over a year ago to nab the nomination. Because he won’t need detailed policies as much as he’ll need strong soundbytes, and he can always walk his prior soundbytes closer to this current soundbytes with a little soft-shoe routine.
Because the bottom line is that the people who matter — the voters — aren’t really paying attention.
+1
Plus Romney already has the bona-fides as a certified flip-flopper. There’s plenty of ammunition already stockpiled for that attack, what’s a few more bullets.
Get the nomination by whatever means, and then make the general about Obama and hope no one pays too much attention to his own record is pretty much Mitt’s best strategy.
As for what he does once he actually is elected, I doubt even Romney knows.
I propose answer #5: Romney believes every word that he utters – at the time.
I have seen this before. The man is so full of himself, he believes that whatever advances his ambition to be president must indeed be the truth. It goes beyond “kidding himself” to the point of psychosis and beyond.
Why does Romney have such a drive to be president? What accounts for his late-in-life commitment to “public service”? Is it because his father ran for president but fell short? That reminds me eerily of the Bush Family.
Mike Huckabee said it best: “I don’t think he has a soul.”
If we elect Romney to be president, we might as well draw a name out of a hat – because we will have no idea what kind of man will be in the White House.
lol, I don’t agree but that was funny. give Romney a task that involves numbers and he might do it well, but he is not a natural politician, he just looks the part.
out of a hat
Would that be a magic hat, with golden plates inside?
I am with everyone else here, it is number 2 (ironic number placement of that reason being unintentional I gather). Romney would say anything to get the nomination and then worry moderate it in the general (if he thinks he has to, he just might try to coast to victory at that stage as he does have that Dewey vibe)
Personally, I kind of like Romney, his naked ambition has a kind of leave it to beaver quality.
I vote #2. He seems fairly competent but stuck in a system that rewards bullsh*t instead of honesty. Unfortunately, American voters have proven to respond to pandering, and business leaders like Romney know that our society is suckered in by marketing over substance in most aspects of life. Just look at the crap people buy.
I’m waiting for Romney to hold a press conference any minute, bashing President Obama’s inept management of the earth’s crust, and allowing today’s east coast earthquake to happen. A Republican president would have prevented this, probably through prayer…
“Romney is a total cynic. He will say whatever he needs to say to win the GOP nomination. Then he will say whatever he needs to say to win the general election. He’ll worry later about how to fix the economy: first he has to clinch today’s sale.”
Thats the only reason I considered voting for him……..
Considering the other GOP choices I want Romney to do whatever he needs to do to win the nomination. We can only hope that Romney is acting crazy while we know that the other candidates truly are crazy. That makes it answer #2 for me.
Gallup 8/20 – 8/22 38% approve 54% disapprove -16
Hey Frum, what’s the obsession with Romney? With poll numbers like these, only Palin could lose to Obama now.
Maybe I haven’t been reading this website long enough, but when Mr. Frum suggests that cutting spending and tightening money is somehow at “odds with realty” as a prescription for the economy – and like every other Republican name out there says exactly the opposite – it’s probably expected that there will be some questions raised among those of us who are not completely familiar with Mr. Frum or Frum Forum’s line of thinking.
Does anyone have a link to a detailed explanation by Mr. Frum (or another blogger on this site) about how the prevailing economic policies of Republicans and conservatives are bad ideas, about why there is no reason to be concerned with the Federal Reserve, and about why exactly more government stimulus spending and/or quantitative easing is good for the national economy from a traditional conservative economic perspective?
I’m not trying to be snarky or even engage in a debate. I’m just trying to get educated on all sides of this issue.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/tim-pawlentys-supply-side-time-warp/
From Ross Douthat, quoting Ramesh Ponuru.
You don’t need a lot of facts and figures to understand the counterargument to the GOPs current economic theories, just common sense.
We’re in a vicious cycle right now. After the housing bubble, banks are less likely to lend money, which is bad because most people need credit to buy houses, cars, and large consumer goods, and businesses need credit to finance expansion. Reduced credit accross the board means reduced consumer demand and reduced production capacity, and companies respond to this by downsizing their workforces. Those who are displaced in the process must tighten their belts and go on unemployment, ensuring further reduction in demand.
The government can step in and break the downward spiral by temporarily filling that demand gap through a stimulus and loosening credit againt through quantitative easing. None of this is wanton or arbitrary; it is well-planned and intended only to be temporary. Certainly it’s not all roses – stimulus spending is done with borrowed money which must be repaid at some point, and quantitative easing will likely result in brief, mild inflation – but these are tradeoffs worth making if they can get the economy rolling again.
In the long term, our system needs reforms, but in the short term, it’s important to remember that government spending represents real income and real revenue to real people today. Consumer demand and personal incomes are already reduced by market forces, how much sense does it make to reduce them further right now by decreasing what the government buys from the private sector and decreasing what they pay via social programs? Same thing with quantitative easing. Credit is already tight due to market forces, so how productive is it to tighten the money supply further?
Frankly, I think the GOP is unable or unwilling to prioritize our problems, is more interested in arguing philosophical points and protecting the interests of the ultra-rich than it is in recognizing acceptable tradeoffs that can lead to economic recovery.
You should also read everything written by Bruce Bartlett. He’s been great at explaining economics and policy…with more than a bit of political history thrown into the mix.
5) He remembers how McCain got the nod.
Political junkies who follow politics on the internet and cable know that Romney is a poltroon , a fraud and a joke. A weird guy, all Mormonism aside. The low information voter will hear one sound bite of 10 seconds on the 10pm news and think Romney may make some sense. They just don’t take, or have the time, to look at the string of fibs and mendacities that make Mr Pretzel what he is. It’s voters like that that may get him elected, because if he is the nominee, many on the far Right will sit out the election.
Can Romney believe what he says? Hell, over the last decade Romney can’t even REMEMBER what he’s said. In 2008 he was a mass of self-contradiction.
Definitely #2 above. He’s the most “say anything” Presidential candidate I can ever remember. He literally does not seem to have even one strongly held position. Anything can be kicked to the curb if he thinks it will move him one inch closer to the goal line.
Maybe just maybe Romney is a lot smarter than David Frum.
Romney is the type of Republican that can win in any region of the country. Much like Bill Clinton was the type of Democrat that could expand the map for them.
He’ll face some steep hurdles in the primary, but if he makes it through he will defeat Obama pretty easily barring some kind of dramatic turnaround in the economy that has yet to surface.
ah yes, assertion without a hint of analysis, How clever of you.
Good lord you don’t have a clue what is going to happen next November (and neither do I) because it will on be based on turnout, nothing more.
Romney has no where near the charisma or political instincts of Clinton. There’s absolutely nothing there that is going to appeal to a NorthWestern Democrat, CA or any Southerner, so not sure where this ‘expand the map’ stuff is coming from.
It’s #2, and it’s not even a question.
Romney is immediately confronted with two choices:
A) Be honest. Lose the primaries.
B) Lie. Maybe win the primaries.
He’s a politician. He chose B.
So he’s afraid to be a RINO and afraid to offend the Tea Party radicals. So he continues to run a campaign based on fear, and becomes Pretzel Man, all things to all people, with a core of Jell-O.
Nothing to admire here….next!
Nothing to admire here
1. the hair
2. the clever way he kept his dog from fogging up the station wagon windows on that long trip
…and a cool polka dot tie.
What’s Romney thinking?
Was this an invitation to a caption for the picture, cause if it is:
“You wouldn’t think that you could get a wedgie from “the garment”, but let me tell you, with this woodie, I’m startin’ to feel tight around the back…”
Romney’s comments at a Florida diner about his being “unemployed”, combined with the news that he is demolishing his 3000 sq. ft. California “beach house” in order to build an 11,000 sq. ft. “beach house”, all the while knowing he received the benefits of the Bush Tax Cuts and will receive the benefit of the Republican efforts to make him pay not one cent in new taxes, also combined with the Republican opposition to the extension of the payroll tax exemption coming up that will raise the taxes of ALL workers in the U.S. just makes me question whether the Republican party cares about anyone but the rich at all.
The answer is clearly #2. The sad truth is that only a narcissistic megalomaniac would choose to run for President of the USA in 2012. We can only hope that somehow our political leaders will be able to draft a qualified candidate against his / her will.
Like the famous Catch 22 premise, we can only have confidence in a candidate who is drafted without any desire to run for President. Anybody who wants to be President is seeking power and prestige in a narcissistic fashion (think Sarah Palin); by stark contrast, anybody who is truly qualified to be President would choose not to go through the insanity of today’s campaign process. We can have confidence in those candidates who honestly don’t want to run for President: this shows a sane and sober assessment of the role of President and the absolutely crazy process of today’s campaigns.
The important question is not “Can Romney Believe What He Says?”
The real question is instead “Can Anyone Believe What Romney Says?” Given his history, that seems much more problematic.